A federal judge in Sacramento partially blocked one of California’s “sanctuary state” laws, but upheld two others, on Thursday.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a challenge in March against the Inspection and Review of Facilities Housing Federal Detainees law (AB 103); the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450); and the California Values Act (SB 54). Attorney General Jeff Sessions traveled specially to Sacramento for the filing.

Judge John Mendez, a George W. Bush appointee, declined the state’s request in April to transfer the case to a more liberal federal court San Francisco. That was thought to be a good sign for the Trump administration’s case, but the judge ruled largely in the state’s favor Thursday, upholding AB 103 and SB 54, while blocking enforcement of portions of AB 450.

Experts had predicted SB 54 would be upheld and that AB 450 would be struck down, but had also predicted that AB 103 would be unlikely to survive.

When they passed SB 54, AB 103, and AB 450, California’s political leadership clearly intended to obstruct federal immigration authorities in their state. The preliminary injunction of AB 450 is a major victory for private employers in California who are no longer prevented from cooperating with legitimate enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. While we are disappointed that California’s other laws designed to protect criminal aliens were not yet halted, the Justice Department will continue to seek out and fight unjust policies that threaten public safety.

In his ruling, Judge Mendez wrestled with the question of whether the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause barred the state’s attempts to restrict federal enforcement of immigration laws within the state. The judge also considered whether the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserved California’s right to deny assistance to the federal government as it sought to enforce immigration laws.

(His decision only affected the application of DOJ for a preliminary injunction against the state’s effort to enforce its sanctuary laws; the final merits of the case are still yet to be decided later in the legal process.)

With regard to AB 103, under which California subjected federal immigration detention facilities to state inspection, Judge Mendez held: “The Court finds no indication in the cited portions of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] that Congress intended for States to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders.” The specific federal contracts for the operation of the facility, the judge further reasoned, “demonstrate that California retains some authority over the detention facilities.” In allowing the state to review the condition of federal facilities, the judge wrote, the law did not allow the state to do very much at all: “For all its bark, the law has no real bite.” Other provisions of the law, Judge Mendez, created no real conflict with federal law.

In considering AB 450, which prevents private employers from cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement officials voluntarily, Judge Mendez found the task of balancing state and federal authority more difficult. “The Court finds AB 450’s prohibitions on consent … troubling due to the precarious situation in which it places employers,” he wrote. “Irrespective of the State’s interest in protecting workers, the Court finds that the warrant requirement [of AB 450] may impede immigration enforcement’s investigation of employers or other matters within their authority to investigate.” However, he added that state and federal law did not necessarily conflict: “Congress has not expressly authorized immigration officers to enter places of labor upon employer consent, nor has Congress authorized immigration enforcement officers to wield authority coextensive with the Fourth Amendment.”

Ultimately, Judge Mendez blocked AB 450’s monetary penalties on employers who comply with the federal government, because he found such fines violated the Supremacy Clause “under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine,” which prevents states from discriminating against the federal government or those residents who choose deal with it. He also blocked enforcement of a provision of the California law that prevents employers from voluntarily re-verifying the immigration status of employees.

Finally, on SB 54 — the most controversial of California’s “sanctuary state” laws — Judge Mendez declined to agree with DOJ. He upheld a section of the law preventing the state from assisting the federal government by providing the release dates of illegal aliens detained by state and local law enforcement. According to Judge Mendez, the state law did not, in fact, conflict with federal law, which he interpreted as merely requiring the states to provide the citizenship status of detainees.

Judge Mendez later added: “California’s decision not to assist federal immigration enforcement in its endeavors is not an “obstacle” to that enforcement effort … refusing to help is not the same as impeding.” If it were, the Tenth Amendment would be meaningless, he suggested. Congress had not specifically indicated a “clear and manifest purpose to preempt state law” in the relevant federal immigration laws.

Judge Mendez also accepted the state’s argument that helping the federal government enforce immigration law would hurt public trust in local law enforcement, and hence local public safety.

The judge concluded:

This Court has gone to great lengths to explain the legal grounds for its opinion. This Order hopefully will not be viewed through a political lens and this Court expresses no views on the soundness of the policies or statutes involved in this lawsuit. There is no place for politics in our judicial system and this one opinion will neither define nor solve the complicated immigration issues currently facing our Nation.

…

If there is going to be a long-term solution to the problems our country faces with respect to immigration policy, it can only come from our legislative and executive branches. It cannot and will not come from piecemeal opinions issued by the judicial branch. Accordingly, this Court joins the ever-growing chorus of Federal Judges in urging our elected officials to set aside the partisan and polarizing politics dominating the current immigration debate and work in a cooperative and bi-partisan fashion toward drafting and passing legislation that addresses this critical political issue. Our Nation deserves it. Our Constitution demands it.

Voters will head to the polls Tuesday in the California primary, which will not only determine the final matchups in several key statewide races, including the race for governor, but will also set the framework for the overall battle for the U.S. House nationwide.

Democrats are targeting at least seven, and as many as ten, congressional districts in the Golden State, hoping that widespread opposition to the Trump administration will draw their voters to the polls. However, Republicans have seen a surge in voter enthusiasm lately, thanks to the conservative pushback against California’s “sanctuary state” laws. In addition, a glut of Democratic candidates in otherwise winnable districts has given Republicans new hope.

California’s primary is a “top two” or “jungle” primary, in which all of the voters may choose from all of the candidates, regardless of party. The top two finishers qualify for the general election ballot — again, regardless of party. In 2016, that meant an all-Democrat final for the U.S. Senate election between eventual winner Kamala Harris and then-Rep. Loretta Sanchez. But in 2018, it could mean that Democrats fail to qualify for the November ballot in some districts, simply because they are splitting their vote among too many independently viable choices.

Voters will also be determining the fate of State Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who voted to raise the gas tax last year by 12 cents per gallon and now faces a recall election. While many other legislators also voted for the gas tax hike, Newman is from a swing district where Republicans believe they can mount a successful challenge.

Typically, more than two-thirds of California voters submit their ballots by mail, but for the rest, polls will open at 7 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time and close at 8 p.m. Turnout is expected to be low, though that may not be the case in November.

In the first four and a half months since California’s “sanctuary law” went into effect, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department released 349 people who were wanted by immigration officials without alerting the federal agency responsible for deportations.

That’s a little over half of the 605 people the agency requested, according to a spokeswoman for the Sheriff’s Department.

The 605 people that Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked jail officials for make up less than two percent of the 32,137 people booked in San Diego County jails so far this year. That’s consistent with the previous two years when ICE wanted to arrest between 1.5 and 1.6 percent of those in the Sheriff’s custody.

ICE doesn’t pick up every person the agency requests. In 2016, ICE officers did not pick up 157, or about 13 percent, of the people they wanted from the jails, according to the Sheriff’s Department. In 2017, the agency did not pick up 165 of those it requested, also about 13 percent. …

The coastal city of Carlsbad joined over a dozen other local governments Monday in formally opposing California’s “sanctuary state” laws, and supporting the federal government’s lawsuit to overturn them.

Carlsbad’s City Council waded into the national “sanctuary state” issue Monday evening, voting 4-1 to back the federal government’s lawsuit against California.

They also agreed the city should file a legal brief “when appropriate” in support of the federal action against the state’s Senate Bill 54, which prohibits local law enforcement officials from investigating arrestees’ immigration status or reporting that status to federal authorities.

…

A handful of other local jurisdictions have taken a position on the state law, which limits what state and local law enforcement officials from investigating arrestees’ immigration status or reporting it to federal authorities. Federal officials have said the law pre-empts their authority.

So far three [San Diego County] cities — National City, Chula Vista and San Diego — have stepped up to support the state law, while two jurisdictions — Escondido and San Diego County — have voted to oppose it.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed its lawsuit in early March. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (HB 450), the Inspection and Review of Facilities Housing Federal Detainees law (AB 103); and the California Values Act (SB 54). The Trump administration argues that these laws violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

In the weeks that followed, local activists, inspired by the Trump administration’s intervention, urged cities and counties to defy the sanctuary state laws and support the federal lawsuit. …

President Donald Trump on Wednesday hammered California for its so-called sanctuary immigration policies, in what appeared to be his latest push to embolden his base leading into the midterm elections.

As the debate over immigration heats up on Capitol Hill, Trump surrounded himself with mayors, sheriffs and other local leaders from California who oppose the state’s immigration policies and who applauded his administration’s hard-line efforts.

“This is your Republican resistance right here against what they’re doing in California,” said California Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, coopting a term used by Democrats opposed to Trump’s presidency. She, like others, said the president and his policies were far more popular in the state than people realize.

“It’s a crisis,” Melendez said of the situation.

They were responding to legislation signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown last year that bars police from asking people about their immigration status or helping federal agents with immigration enforcement. Jail officials can transfer inmates to federal immigration authorities if they have been convicted of one of about 800 crimes, mostly felonies, but not for minor offenses. …

Once coveted as a conservative bastion in liberal California, Orange County has become a last stand for the state’s Republicans.

Chased out of much of California by Democrats who hold every statewide office and a 39-14 advantage in U.S. House seats, the state’s GOP is trying to hold its ground in a historically Republican stronghold.

My Administration stands in solidarity with the brave citizens in Orange County defending their rights against California's illegal and unconstitutional Sanctuary policies. California's Sanctuary laws….

Republican elected officials in a string of cities and two counties — Orange and neighboring San Diego — have passed ordinances or taken other actions in opposition to the state’s so-called sanctuary law, enacted by the Democratic-run Legislature in response to Trump’s calls for more deportations and a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. …

Riverside is joining the ranks of Inland cities debating California’s sanctuary state law.

Councilman Chuck Conder asked at the Tuesday, April 24, City Council meeting that a discussion of the sanctuary state law be put on the council’s May 8 agenda.

“I request that, in the soonest possible timeframe, an item be agendized to discuss and adopt a resolution of the City Council declaring Riverside, being a city of laws, publicly affirm that we are not a sanctuary city,” Conder said.

The discussion will most likely be held at the regular June 12 City Council meeting, City Clerk Colleen Nicol said Wednesday after consulting with Interim City Manager Lee McDougal. The city’s sunshine resolution requires a resolution and report be prepared at least 12 days before the meeting. …

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 Tuesday to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over so-called sanctuary laws that the state passed last year to limit its role in immigration enforcement.

The county will file an amicus brief at the first available opportunity, likely if and when the case moves to a higher court on appeal, said Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, chairwoman of the board.

The board voted in closed session after 45 minutes of public comment in which most speakers in the packed chambers urged the supervisors to vote against supporting the lawsuit.

Margaret Baker, who lives near the border, told the board that backing the lawsuit will discourage immigrants from reporting crime.

“We see this lawsuit as an attack on our safety and the well-being of our community,” she said. …

Two more California cities joined the growing revolt this week against “sanctuary state” laws enacted by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The city council of Fountain Valley in Orange County voted on Tuesday to join the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against the state that was filed last month in Sacramento — thanks, in part, to intervention by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who faces a tough re-election fight in November.

The Los Angeles Timesreports: “A majority of the Fountain Valley City Council overcame a reluctance to spend public funds on joining the growing Orange County movement against California’s so-called sanctuary immigration laws after U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher offered Tuesday to foot the bill for the city to file a court brief supporting a federal lawsuit targeting the laws.”

And on Wednesday, the city council of Escondido in San Diego County also voted to join the fight by filing a brief in support of the Trump administration’s case by Friday.

Following a contentious, three-hour meeting filled with name-calling and impassioned pleas, the Escondido City Council voted 4-1 Wednesday to file a legal brief in support of the U.S. government’s lawsuit challenging the state’s sanctuary laws.

…

More than 70 people spoke during a public meeting in a packed City Council chambers, with most addressing the larger issue of immigration and often echoing the national divide between President Trump’s supporters and detractors.

Escondido Mayor Sam Abed, himself an immigrant, defended the council’s 4-1 vote against “sanctuary” laws, underscoring the need to work with federal law enforcement authorities to keep the community safe.